On 10/2/07, Decibel! <decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:43 AM, Gregory Stark wrote: > > "Csaba Nagy" <nagy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 09:03 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > >>>>> Mem: 32945280k total, 32871832k used, 73448k free, > >>>>> 247432k buffers > >>>>> Swap: 1951888k total, 42308k used, 1909580k free, > >>>>> 30294300k cached > >>>> > >>> It seems to imply Linux is paging out sysV shared memory. In fact > >>> some of > >>> Heikki's tests here showed that Linux would do precisely that. > >> > >> But then why is it not reporting that in the "Swap: used" > >> section ? It > >> only reports 42308k used swap. > > > > Hm, good point. > > > > The other possibility is that Postgres just hasn't even touched a > > large part > > of its shared buffers. > > Sorry for the late reply... > > No, this is on a very active database server; the working set is > almost certainly larger than memory (probably by a fair margin :( ), > and all of the shared buffers should be in use. > > I'm leaning towards "top on linux == dumb". Yeah, that pretty much describes it. It's gotten better than it once was. But it still doesn't seem to be able to tell shared memory from cache/buffer. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
